Bungie.net Community
This topic has moved here: Subject: Why is this even a rule?
  • Subject: Why is this even a rule?
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • of 4
Subject: Why is this even a rule?

I breathe BR, not kidding homie.

To determine context and whether a thread is acceptable to post false info and joke around is solely based off the fact if mods were previously joking in it or if urk posted a picture.

If you notice these signs, then its completely alright to joke around and be a little more relaxed with the rules, because everyone's just having a good ole' time.rite?

and even then its up to mod discretion if your joking around a little too much.

Maybe someone should create a thread entitled "common sense" and give examples of situations of when it's appropriate or not appropriate to break rules. Or would this make things too obvious?

  • 10.27.2011 4:32 PM PDT

Hello, I'm Mr AwesomePizza. I like pizza and I'm a man. Reasoning for the name. I like to listen to the classics of music, write poetry, play video games, and much much more. I'm always down for a nice chat, so please hit me up for some conversation.

Posted by: coolmike699

Posted by: Achronos
Short answer: context matters.

Remember, the entire rules can be summed up as "Play nice, don't be a jerk." Apply that to the context of the conversation. Is this false information just a friendly joke between a few friends, or is it the post of some tool trying to get his jollies by tricking people into deleting their system32 directory (as an example)? See? Not that hard.

The rule stays as is.


So, why can't you simply add the word "maliciously" to the rule? It's one word, and it would make the rule perfectly convey what you mean, without making us guess.
My thought as well.

That is all I want. Just a better clarification on the rule.

[Edited on 10.27.2011 4:35 PM PDT]

  • 10.27.2011 4:32 PM PDT

Hi I'm RT and I like to argue!


Posted by: Mr AwesomePizza
Posted by: coolmike699

Posted by: Achronos
Short answer: context matters.

Remember, the entire rules can be summed up as "Play nice, don't be a jerk." Apply that to the context of the conversation. Is this false information just a friendly joke between a few friends, or is it the post of some tool trying to get his jollies by tricking people into deleting their system32 directory (as an example)? See? Not that hard.

The rule stays as is.


So, why can't you simply add the word "maliciously" to the rule? It's one word, and it would make the rule perfectly convey what you mean, without making us guess.
My thought as well.

That is all I want. Just a better clarification on the rule.
That wouldn't clarify it at all, at least not how you want, because that would imply a judgment of the poster's intent, rather than potential outcomes. Thus creating more confusion, thus defeating the purpose of the initiative.

  • 10.27.2011 4:37 PM PDT

Hello, I'm Mr AwesomePizza. I like pizza and I'm a man. Reasoning for the name. I like to listen to the classics of music, write poetry, play video games, and much much more. I'm always down for a nice chat, so please hit me up for some conversation.

Posted by: RighteousTyrant

Posted by: Mr AwesomePizza
Posted by: coolmike699

Posted by: Achronos
Short answer: context matters.

Remember, the entire rules can be summed up as "Play nice, don't be a jerk." Apply that to the context of the conversation. Is this false information just a friendly joke between a few friends, or is it the post of some tool trying to get his jollies by tricking people into deleting their system32 directory (as an example)? See? Not that hard.

The rule stays as is.


So, why can't you simply add the word "maliciously" to the rule? It's one word, and it would make the rule perfectly convey what you mean, without making us guess.
My thought as well.

That is all I want. Just a better clarification on the rule.
That wouldn't clarify it at all, at least not how you want, because that would imply a judgment of the poster's intent, rather than potential outcomes. Thus creating more confusion, thus defeating the purpose of the initiative.
Fine, how about it just says you need to make sure to add "Joking" at the end if you're joking. If you don't, and it's possibly harmful to the other user, they get banned.

  • 10.27.2011 4:41 PM PDT

Hi I'm RT and I like to argue!


Posted by: Mr AwesomePizza
Posted by: RighteousTyrant

Posted by: Mr AwesomePizza
Posted by: coolmike699

Posted by: Achronos
Short answer: context matters.

Remember, the entire rules can be summed up as "Play nice, don't be a jerk." Apply that to the context of the conversation. Is this false information just a friendly joke between a few friends, or is it the post of some tool trying to get his jollies by tricking people into deleting their system32 directory (as an example)? See? Not that hard.

The rule stays as is.


So, why can't you simply add the word "maliciously" to the rule? It's one word, and it would make the rule perfectly convey what you mean, without making us guess.
My thought as well.

That is all I want. Just a better clarification on the rule.
That wouldn't clarify it at all, at least not how you want, because that would imply a judgment of the poster's intent, rather than potential outcomes. Thus creating more confusion, thus defeating the purpose of the initiative.
Fine, how about it just says you need to make sure to add "Joking" at the end if you're joking. If you don't, and it's possibly harmful to the other user, they get banned.
But what if I say "just kidding" rather than "joking"? Or "just playing" or "just messing around"? They all have the same meaning, but only one is specified in the rules.

See why this is a bad idea?

  • 10.27.2011 5:26 PM PDT

Posted by: Dustin 6047
Troll confirmed. I never even insulted you

Posted by: Dustin 6047
OP - You're a dumbass with the reading comprehension skills of a second grader.


Can someone tell me what's wrong with these two, this made me LOL hard.

Has does?


Anyways, people do that. But come on, a lot of people who fall for it might have to use common sense themselves. When someone says, "Delete System 32", they're trying to get the person to basically break their computer. Windows now have a disclaimer stating that you should "not delete system32". People who fall for that don't deserve to break their computer because of an idiot, but they should use common sense to know that it will break it.

  • 10.27.2011 5:29 PM PDT

Posted by: Mr AwesomePizza
Posted by: RighteousTyrant

Posted by: Mr AwesomePizza
Posted by: coolmike699

Posted by: Achronos
Short answer: context matters.

Remember, the entire rules can be summed up as "Play nice, don't be a jerk." Apply that to the context of the conversation. Is this false information just a friendly joke between a few friends, or is it the post of some tool trying to get his jollies by tricking people into deleting their system32 directory (as an example)? See? Not that hard.

The rule stays as is.[/quote]

So, why can't you simply add the word "maliciously" to the rule? It's one word, and it would make the rule perfectly convey what you mean, without making us guess.
My thought as well.

That is all I want. Just a better clarification on the rule.
That wouldn't clarify it at all, at least not how you want, because that would imply a judgment of the poster's intent, rather than potential outcomes. Thus creating more confusion, thus defeating the purpose of the initiative.
Fine, how about it just says you need to make sure to add "Joking" at the end if you're joking. If you don't, and it's possibly harmful to the other user, they get banned.
But what if I say "just kidding" rather than "joking"? Or "just playing" or "just messing around"? They all have the same meaning, but only one is specified in the rules.

See why this is a bad idea?


No.

If it could cause harm to a reasonable person if they were to believe it, then it's malicious, no matter what the true intent is.

Joking that Bungie "is, in fact, a cult" in that other thread is OK, because it's clearly not serious. And even if someone did believe it it wouldn't hurt them.

If someone asks me for computer help, and I post a link to www.spamshocksitevirus.com that says "Helpful Guide", then that's malicious.

  • 10.27.2011 5:30 PM PDT

Hi I'm RT and I like to argue!

Posted by: coolmike699
No.

If it could cause harm to a reasonable person if they were to believe it, then it's malicious, no matter what the true intent is.

Joking that Bungie "is, in fact, a cult" in that other thread is OK, because it's clearly not serious. And even if someone did believe it it wouldn't hurt them.

If someone asks me for computer help, and I post a link to www.spamshocksitevirus.com that says "Helpful Guide", then that's malicious.
Okay, but we aren't arguing over what is/isn't "malicious", we are arguing over whether adding that to the rules in some way would make them more clear.

I don't think anyone is contesting the definition of malice. I know I'm not.

  • 10.27.2011 5:34 PM PDT

Hello, I'm Mr AwesomePizza. I like pizza and I'm a man. Reasoning for the name. I like to listen to the classics of music, write poetry, play video games, and much much more. I'm always down for a nice chat, so please hit me up for some conversation.

Posted by: RighteousTyrant
But what if I say "just kidding" rather than "joking"? Or "just playing" or "just messing around"? They all have the same meaning, but only one is specified in the rules.

See why this is a bad idea?
Well I meant it as an example. As long as the user is told that it was not serious, than I see no problem. I didn't intend that to be an exact phrase to be said.

  • 10.27.2011 5:35 PM PDT

Hi I'm RT and I like to argue!

Posted by: Mr AwesomePizza
Posted by: RighteousTyrant
But what if I say "just kidding" rather than "joking"? Or "just playing" or "just messing around"? They all have the same meaning, but only one is specified in the rules.

See why this is a bad idea?
Well I meant it as an example. As long as the user is told that it was not serious, than I see no problem. I didn't intend that to be an exact phrase to be said.
Whether that was an example or not, the issue is and remains a real one. If you put something like that in there, either you need to specify the exact phrase that grants this protection, or you have the same problem that we're trying to cure in this thread--a vague rule with varying interpretations.

  • 10.27.2011 5:39 PM PDT

Hello, I'm Mr AwesomePizza. I like pizza and I'm a man. Reasoning for the name. I like to listen to the classics of music, write poetry, play video games, and much much more. I'm always down for a nice chat, so please hit me up for some conversation.

Posted by: RighteousTyrant
Posted by: Mr AwesomePizza
Posted by: RighteousTyrant
But what if I say "just kidding" rather than "joking"? Or "just playing" or "just messing around"? They all have the same meaning, but only one is specified in the rules.

See why this is a bad idea?
Well I meant it as an example. As long as the user is told that it was not serious, than I see no problem. I didn't intend that to be an exact phrase to be said.
Whether that was an example or not, the issue is and remains a real one. If you put something like that in there, either you need to specify the exact phrase that grants this protection, or you have the same problem that we're trying to cure in this thread--a vague rule with varying interpretations.
What? I'm not sure what you're saying.

  • 10.27.2011 5:42 PM PDT


Posted by: RighteousTyrant
Posted by: Mr AwesomePizza
Posted by: RighteousTyrant
But what if I say "just kidding" rather than "joking"? Or "just playing" or "just messing around"? They all have the same meaning, but only one is specified in the rules.

See why this is a bad idea?
Well I meant it as an example. As long as the user is told that it was not serious, than I see no problem. I didn't intend that to be an exact phrase to be said.
Whether that was an example or not, the issue is and remains a real one. If you put something like that in there, either you need to specify the exact phrase that grants this protection, or you have the same problem that we're trying to cure in this thread--a vague rule with varying interpretations.


"Specify that you are not serious".

There you go.

  • 10.27.2011 5:44 PM PDT

Hi I'm RT and I like to argue!

Posted by: Mr AwesomePizza
What? I'm not sure what you're saying.
Then let's try something else.

How would you modify that rule? Like, if you re-wrote it, what would it say?

  • 10.27.2011 5:45 PM PDT

Hi I'm RT and I like to argue!

Posted by: coolmike699
Posted by: RighteousTyrant
Posted by: Mr AwesomePizza
Posted by: RighteousTyrant
But what if I say "just kidding" rather than "joking"? Or "just playing" or "just messing around"? They all have the same meaning, but only one is specified in the rules.

See why this is a bad idea?
Well I meant it as an example. As long as the user is told that it was not serious, than I see no problem. I didn't intend that to be an exact phrase to be said.
Whether that was an example or not, the issue is and remains a real one. If you put something like that in there, either you need to specify the exact phrase that grants this protection, or you have the same problem that we're trying to cure in this thread--a vague rule with varying interpretations.


"Specify that you are not serious".

There you go.
Specify? How and where? What if I embed it as a parenthetical notation in a very long paragraph (or rather in a terrible, massive posts without sentences or line breaks) that will likely be missed before anyone clicks whatever link or follows whatever directions I've given? Hey, I specified, it's right there, not my fault no one wanted to read my 10k character post before clicking that meatspin link! I followed the rules, y u ban me?!

You're just opening up the door for additional manipulation, which will in turn require more wordy rules, which opens the door further . . .

  • 10.27.2011 5:48 PM PDT


Posted by: RighteousTyrant
Posted by: coolmike699
Posted by: RighteousTyrant
Posted by: Mr AwesomePizza
Posted by: RighteousTyrant
But what if I say "just kidding" rather than "joking"? Or "just playing" or "just messing around"? They all have the same meaning, but only one is specified in the rules.

See why this is a bad idea?
Well I meant it as an example. As long as the user is told that it was not serious, than I see no problem. I didn't intend that to be an exact phrase to be said.
Whether that was an example or not, the issue is and remains a real one. If you put something like that in there, either you need to specify the exact phrase that grants this protection, or you have the same problem that we're trying to cure in this thread--a vague rule with varying interpretations.


"Specify that you are not serious".

There you go.
Specify? How and where? What if I embed it as a parenthetical notation in a very long paragraph (or rather in a terrible, massive posts without sentences or line breaks) that will likely be missed before anyone clicks whatever link or follows whatever directions I've given? Hey, I specified, it's right there, not my fault no one wanted to read my 10k character post before clicking that meatspin link! I followed the rules, y u ban me?!

You're just opening up the door for additional manipulation, which will in turn require more wordy rules, which opens the door further . . .


If it's hidden so that most people won't find it, then it's malicious.

This is the way the courts do it. You can't make a decision for every situation, so they use tests to determine what is OK and what isn't. It works pretty well, in fact. I think we need a couple of those here.

No one here is asking for complete perfection here.

  • 10.27.2011 5:53 PM PDT

Hi I'm RT and I like to argue!

Posted by: coolmike699
If it's hidden so that most people won't find it, then it's malicious.

This is the way the courts do it. You can't make a decision for every situation, so they use tests to determine what is OK and what isn't. It works pretty well, in fact. I think we need a couple of those here.

No one here is asking for complete perfection here.
Tests, huh? So, even MORE complication to the rules. Also, what defines "most people" and how do we determine whether or not they could find it? If a few people throw up a "i c wut u did thar" then I have good evidence that it wasn't in fact hidden and that I've committed no offense. Better come up with a new test.

B.net =/= the justice system. Have you ever considered the sheer volume of case law that exists, which is where a lot of these sorts of tests that you reference originate? It is so complex that we pay people hundreds of dollars per hour to navigate it for us. Do we really want a comparable body of law/rules for B.net?

  • 10.27.2011 6:00 PM PDT

Hello, I'm Mr AwesomePizza. I like pizza and I'm a man. Reasoning for the name. I like to listen to the classics of music, write poetry, play video games, and much much more. I'm always down for a nice chat, so please hit me up for some conversation.

Posted by: RighteousTyrant
Posted by: Mr AwesomePizza
What? I'm not sure what you're saying.
Then let's try something else.

How would you modify that rule? Like, if you re-wrote it, what would it say?
- Do not post false information or mislead other forum-goers. If you're joking about it, please let the user know. But any thing that will harm the user, even though you said, "Just kidding" you will still be done with.

Or something along those lines.

  • 10.27.2011 6:04 PM PDT

Hi I'm RT and I like to argue!


Posted by: Mr AwesomePizza
Posted by: RighteousTyrant
Posted by: Mr AwesomePizza
What? I'm not sure what you're saying.
Then let's try something else.

How would you modify that rule? Like, if you re-wrote it, what would it say?
- Do not post false information or mislead other forum-goers. If you're joking about it, please let the user know. But any thing that will harm the user, even though you said, "Just kidding" you will still be done with.

Or something along those lines.
"Let the user know"

Which user? I'll send a PM and let him or her or them know. But as a moderator, you won't see it. But I'll have followed the rules!

But now you're adding that whether I disclaim the false info or not, if a user is misled by it, I get punished regardless, thus making the disclaimer nearly useless.


Look, you seem to have good sense about you and know what is and isnt' acceptable. Why not just use that sense rather than trying to drag B.net back into the hell of overly-wordy rules that we just crawled out of this year?

  • 10.27.2011 6:09 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

And the Shadow fell upon the Land, and the World was riven stone from stone. The oceans fled, and the mountains were swallowed up, and the nations were scattered to the eight corners of the World. The moon was blood, and the sun was as ashes. The seas boiled, and the living envied the dead. All was shattered, and all but memory lost, and one memory above all others, of him who brought the Shadow and the Breaking of the World. And him they named Dragon.

Too long, did not read. (that is my actual feedback to that suggestion).
Posted by: Mr AwesomePizza
Do not post false information or mislead other forum-goers. If you're joking about it, please let the user know. But any thing that will harm the user, even though you said, "Just kidding" you will still be done with.

  • 10.27.2011 6:10 PM PDT

Hello, I'm Mr AwesomePizza. I like pizza and I'm a man. Reasoning for the name. I like to listen to the classics of music, write poetry, play video games, and much much more. I'm always down for a nice chat, so please hit me up for some conversation.

Posted by: RighteousTyrant

Posted by: Mr AwesomePizza
Posted by: RighteousTyrant
Posted by: Mr AwesomePizza
What? I'm not sure what you're saying.
Then let's try something else.

How would you modify that rule? Like, if you re-wrote it, what would it say?
- Do not post false information or mislead other forum-goers. If you're joking about it, please let the user know. But any thing that will harm the user, even though you said, "Just kidding" you will still be done with.

Or something along those lines.
"Let the user know"

Which user? I'll send a PM and let him or her or them know. But as a moderator, you won't see it. But I'll have followed the rules!

But now you're adding that whether I disclaim the false info or not, if a user is misled by it, I get punished regardless, thus making the disclaimer nearly useless.


Look, you seem to have good sense about you and know what is and isnt' acceptable. Why not just use that sense rather than trying to drag B.net back into the hell of overly-wordy rules that we just crawled out of this year?
I personally liked the old rules better. It left less guessing. But if you link a shock site or any other inappropriate site, you would be breaking this rule:
- Use common sense. This is a video game developer's website. Keep your posts on-topic and "safe for work". The further you stray the more you'll tempt a ban.

  • 10.27.2011 6:16 PM PDT

There are many powers in the world, for good or for evil. Some are greater than I am. Against some I have not yet been measured. But my time is coming.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Forum Rules
List of Forum Ninjas

You're not taking what Achronos said into consideration. The rule is not simply "Do not mislead other forum-goers. Yes even if it is funny." The rule is "Play nice. Don't be a jerk. Do not mislead other forum-goers. Yes even if it is funny." When you say it like that, there is no need for any more clarity.

  • 10.27.2011 6:28 PM PDT

Hello, I'm Mr AwesomePizza. I like pizza and I'm a man. Reasoning for the name. I like to listen to the classics of music, write poetry, play video games, and much much more. I'm always down for a nice chat, so please hit me up for some conversation.

Posted by: Old Papa Rich
You're not taking what Achronos said into consideration. The rule is not simply "Do not mislead other forum-goers. Yes even if it is funny." The rule is "Play nice. Don't be a jerk. Do not mislead other forum-goers. Yes even if it is funny." When you say it like that, there is no need for any more clarity.
I see what you mean, and I understand. It doesn't say that though. New members that don't understand that whole lingo on the other hand might think that any misinformation is bannable. The whole point of this thread, and rule proposal, is to help the new guys.

I understand it perfectly, I'm just worried for the newer members.

  • 10.27.2011 6:35 PM PDT

Halo Waypoint Superintendent // Forger // Junior Games & Web Developer.

Halo4ger.com - Founder/Admin.

@DerFlatulator

Reaching Perfection || Blueprint -- Action Sack Lead

I deleted system32. It didn't work.

  • 10.27.2011 6:56 PM PDT

Hi I'm RT and I like to argue!

Posted by: Mr AwesomePizza
I personally liked the old rules better. It left less guessing. But if you link a shock site or any other inappropriate site, you would be breaking this rule:
- Use common sense.
This entire debate is breaking this rule.

Posted by: Mr AwesomePizza
I understand it perfectly, I'm just worried for the newer members.
The only people who read the rules with this much attention to detail are existing users looking for loopholes to either exploit or complain about. I.e., not new users.

[Edited on 10.27.2011 6:59 PM PDT]

  • 10.27.2011 6:57 PM PDT

Hello, I'm Mr AwesomePizza. I like pizza and I'm a man. Reasoning for the name. I like to listen to the classics of music, write poetry, play video games, and much much more. I'm always down for a nice chat, so please hit me up for some conversation.


Posted by: RighteousTyrant
Posted by: Mr AwesomePizza
I personally liked the old rules better. It left less guessing. But if you link a shock site or any other inappropriate site, you would be breaking this rule:
- Use common sense.
This entire debate is breaking this rule.
No it's not.
I'm just saying that the rule needs better explanation.

  • 10.27.2011 7:00 PM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • of 4